Psychological Time during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Canadian Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures have affected routines and mental well-being of people around the world. Research also shows distorted time perception during lockdowns which can partially be explained by compromised well-being. The present study investigates Canadians’ temporal experience and mental well-being at two periods of national lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic (spring 2020: n = 66; beginning of 2021: n = 100). As results indicate, the only difference between these periods on the investigated variables was the strictness of lockdown measures. Our findings show associations between anxiety, depression, confinement indicators, and time perception (future temporal distance, passage of time judgments). Stepwise regression models indicated that depression and strictness of measures predicted the impression that the next week appeared farther away; one’s loneliness appraisal was associated with a perceived slower time flow. Our findings give a preliminary idea about time perception and mental well-being in the Canadian lockdowns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.378 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".